Shut Down The Border Or The Government — It’s Your Choice, Sen. Schumer
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
"The first Schumer Shutdown saw the Senate Democrats put law-breaking foreigners ahead of law-abiding Americans. They learned that was not a winning political ploy.
Now, in Schumer Shutdown 2.0, the crafty senator leading is leading minions into battle to protect the paychecks of Washington bureaucrats rather than the security of American families."
"When President Trump said he would be proud to shut down the government for border security, Schumer replied without missing a beat, “We believe you shouldn’t shut it down.”
Let that sink in: Schumer would keep the border open and endanger us all in order to protect a miniscule number of government employees. I would not bet on Chuck in a poker tournament. President Trump holds the high cards."
Tags
Who is online
67 visitors
"Chuck Schumer and his swamp-dwelling kin see a government shutdown as the end of the world because they think the government and the nation are the same thing."
"The American people know our country is more than the government."
Not one more dollar for the stupid wall! Trump should shut down the government and watch what happens because the GOP already have the approval rating of herpes.
Read the Constitution. It is the government's responsibility to protect against invaders, which Illegal Aliens are, not foreign governments.
Drop the xenophobic hyperbole. These people are not an invading army any more than my ancestors when they came from France and Germany as refugees of the religious wars in the 1700s
Some apparently did from Canada.
Please send me back to Alsace or Barvaria...........s'il vous plait,............ danke.
Why should we waste a billion dollars on a wall when they are other projects that are far more deserving? Are you afraid that the immigrants will take over?
The hatred of immigrants has a long history that we need to move beyond.
You do realize that the majority of the hard illegal drugs like Cocaine and Heroin come in through our southern border?
You do realize that the government is continuously catching terrorists that try to enter through our southern border, and considering how few illegals have been caught compared to the estimates of how many made it through, have you thought about how many WERE NOT caught?
Also, remember, without a wall there needs to be more manpower to patrol the border than there would be if there was a wall and that labor is the single most costly expense in business and government. So, how much more would be saved in terms of personnel costs if the border wall was built, since it would require fewer people to be stationed at the southern border?
So, if you think about it, EVERYONE should be in favor of building the wall to protect the southern border.
Do you really think that they are running kilos of weed and coke through the desert and it would be stopped by a wall? Are you that naive?
Right out of the shute comes bullshit...
The majority of drugs entering this country comes through commercial carriers, trucks, planes and ships.
Most of the heroin doesn't even come through from the south, most of it is Asian heroin from Afghanistan. Afghanistan supplies over 90% of the world's heroin. Cocain is shipped by tractor trailer and ships even at times through specially altered cars with hideaway compartments.
Why are you passing bogus information?
And you live where???? C'mon down to our neck of the woods and actually learn something.
Well I live in the swamp! Try navigating those waters.
You know the FLOTUS violated her visa when she came to the USA, right? You ready to deport her?
This is not bullshit unless you can dispute everything in the following linked graphic?
Why are you spreading bullshit and bogus information, Studiusbagus?
They would have been delayed and increased the chances of them being caught and the planned distribution stopped. Are you that naïve and lacking in understanding of the concept defense-in-depth? If so, I suggest you turn off the firewalls on your computer and router, to simulate the lack of a wall. See how well just your anti-virus works by itself. That is essentially what you are asking to happen, that we just rely on our border patrol. The wall would be just like the firewalls you use on your computer and network, they make it harder for would-be attackers to get into your system to create havoc. The anti-virus is the REACTIONARY force on your system. It doesn't stop attacks unless it know what they are due to someone telling them about them, that is what the border patrol is.
I live on the north coast. We have our own army trying to prevent those sneaky Canuks from coming across the lakes to invade.
What does the property where you work look like? Does it have a fence? If so, the fence is not there to look pretty or to outline the property; it is there to prevent unauthorized people from getting in. As a citizen of the USA, or a legal immigrant, you are authorized to be in the USA and as such can access ports of entry without much problem. You have to show your passport and then you can re-enter the country at will at the Southern or Northern borders. However, those that are trying to get here illegally are just crossing the border wherever they feel like and entering our property without our permission. Then, they access our services, systems, and buildings; again, without permission.
If you go through any sort of "badging in" to a workplace, you are showing you are authorized to work there and can enter the building pretty much at will. Now, depending on your level of authorization, you may only be allowed to access certain places like your desk and computer. Where I used to work, I was only authorized to access places that were limited to the line of business I was on. I could access most of the computers on the production floor with my credentials as we used a domain system. However, I could not access the areas of other lines of business and I could not access a computer beyond my own credentials.
What you and others against the wall are for is to essentially take away the aspect of authorization and allowing anyone to access everything inside the country. Because, once you get into the building, it becomes easier to access areas you are not supposed to be in. In my anecdote above, if I was a bad actor, I could have tailgated someone into another line of business's area and then tried accessing a computer by employing a password cracker after watching someone enter their credentials into a computer by shoulder surfing. Then, once that was done, I could have taken personal information like people's addresses, phone numbers, last 4 digits of their credit card numbers, or even injected a virus or a worm into the computer system to destroy or copy and send the information to me to sell to other bad actors. This is what you want, even if you say you don't want it by opposing the wall. You want the bad actors to come into this country at will and wreak havoc on our society.
There are no fences. We have a card scanner at the employee door with a few bored rent-a-cops drinking coffee at a desk.
We have a moral obligation to care for refugees seeking asylum so I don't have a problem with them coming here. Process them at the border and begin the process there.
If one comes waving the flag of the country they supposedly want to leave, or crosses a border "Illegally", they are "INVADERS" !
I didn't see Finland giving the Russians the thumbs up to come in, and I sure didn't see France throwing out the welcome matt to Germany either.
The ones "Invading" the southern border are like "Kamikaze's". "Kamikaze's" didn't care, and neither do these folks, but they is a comin' anyway !
That's what has been going on, but the problem is the number of people that are coming that really aren't refugees. They aren't escaping violence or an oppressive government, they are seeking jobs. Seeking a job is not a reason for asylum anywhere, it is a reason to apply for a work visa and come legally. The problem is that many people in the "caravans" aren't really asylum seekers, they are job seekers who planned on being let in and then going wherever to find work or are violent people seeking to cause havoc as shown by the riots at the border and in Tijuana. Do you want the people to come in that seek to do violence when they don't get their way? Then, on top of those issues, you have the large numbers of people granted a hearing that do not show up for their court dates to verify their asylum claims.
Drop the conservative hyperbole. They are not trying to take over. They want a chance at the supposed American dream. My Italian neighbor flies the Italian flag in front of his house so should we deport that family too?
147 million adults want to migrate to the US. In your world, we have to let them all in and increase our population by almost 50% or we are "racist."
I often wonder what color the skies are in a world where America can function while allowing every immigrant who wants to enter to do so.
Then I guess it's waaaaaay tooooo much to ask that they do it the "Legal" way ?
Gotta love the American born bleeding hearts. I'm "Italian American", or any other ian/can American folks want to claim. I call Bullshit on that ian/can crap. You were born here, not in some other country, so grow up and have the balls to call yourself an "AMERICAN" for a real "Change" ! There's no such thing as (Somewhere) American if you were born here !
Let me know when you decide to live in your "ian/can" country for awhile, then i'll listen a bit more !
By the way…..don't come here, fleeing something you say you don't like, then try to "Change" this country to fit what you were fleeing from in the first place. What a Dumbshit idea you have, if that's what you want ! You need to stay where you were.
Where did you get this number?
Your bullshit link gave nothimg except about traffickers. But thanks for this
I did some other reading too like fentinyl and opiates mostly come from China...how south is that?
I saw it Here:
Roughly 147 million immigrants now want to move to the U.S.: Gallup poll
Do you have anything more concrete, that isn't from the Moonie Times?
I'd consider moving to Canada or France if I had a chance, so should I be part of that poll?
Wow, you are conflating place of origin with how they get into the country here, Studiusbagus. Plus, who do you think traffickers are? They aren't the people just using it, they are the ones taking it from the country of origin into the country. Stop with the bullshit, Studiusbagus.
Been there - done that. Was stationed in Norfolk for awhile and also DC - never again.
Don't mess with them 'cause you might pizz them off and there goes your neighborhood Tim Horton's.
There was a Tims a few miles away and it was over-rated. It was good coffee but it wasn't great. I ever ordered a double-double, just to be authentic. I was hyped up when I heard it was coming because I wanted to try TimBits. They were a disappointment.
I want a place that sells smoked meat sandwiches, killer bagels, and poutine.
I'm still waiting for the "Celebs" that PROMISED to do just that.
Guess What ?
They had an Excuse TOO !
If only it were true, but a little research shows it is an oft repeated lie.
That's all he's got and he does it all the time.
There is no proof that they are a criminal element.
Just let 'em in and wait and see if they is "Good Folks" later ! (facepalm)
Then process them at the border as is typical. You seem to believe that everyone who has skin color darker than Wonder Bread is a criminal.
Just another Liberal Type Kneejerk response to someone who thinks Borders actually mean something.
"Then process them at the border as is typical."
NO ONE can know someone in a few days. "Process/research" them, then let them in.
Borders are artificial and political.
We are assumed innocent until proven guilty. Why do you think that all Hispanic immigrants are inherently dangerous and a criminal element? If they we white people from Germany coming through Ellis Island would you feel the same way?
Funny how "Borders were "Important" even before the birth of the "United STATES" of America.
I'm sure you understood the "States" part ?
We have borders within ourselves, and all 50 STATES have differing rules and regulations that MUST be followed too.....within their BORDERS !
Borders are not native to the land and they are politically drawn.
We are a nation of immigrants so why should that change now?
We "WERE" a Nation of immigrants. There is a difference now. When's the last time you met an original "Immigrant" that started this country ? (rolling eyes)
"Borders are not native to the land and they are politically drawn."
How times have changed over the millennials huh ! Must really suck for the "No-Border" crowd that hasn't known anything else but BORDERS in their lifetime !
No......we are still a nation of immigrants. The only people who are not immigrants are Native Americans. And in spite of how many times and ways the European immigrants and the government has tried to eradicate them, they are still alive. And as long as the Native American people exist, America will be a nation of immigrants.
The land does not recognize any one people.
If your idea is true then why was Ellis Island built in 1892?
I'm 20+ years too old to be a millennial.
We will soon need to face the fact that borders are artificial and that we need to start to work as one very interconnected planet of humans if we are to survive. Many political borders ignore the traditional tribal or cultural boundaries and as such they cause wars. Much of the middle east and central Asia are proof of this.
Hokey Pucks ! (WTF Face)
Everyone being the "Same", is actually boring, and makes for a crappy date !
Dumbest thought ever:
"We must be the same, but MUST be Diverse to survive !" (Facefuckingpalm)
Not even close !
I think the first generation immigrant first lady and her parents would disagree... Or is that just an exception to your rule for all white Christian Europeans wanting to immigrate? Or is the rule that someone here in the US has to buy a white European bride, then immigration is "okay" in your eyes?
not in any of our lifetimes.
the world will burn first.
Merry Christmas
I think anyone having to go back further than a few great grandparents to make a point about "We are a nation of immigrants".....is just trying to be waaaaaay too PC !
MOST (99%) of us commenting on this Blog were Born here, along with their parents and grandparents, and probably their "Great Grandparents" !
We aren't a "Country of Immigrants" anymore....we are a "Country of "BORN HERE'S " now !
"Illegal" isn't a recognized "Legal" status, although Democrat , Liberal, and progressive types want it to be so ! ! (facefuckingpalm)
The funny thing is the left thinks the Democrats in Congress are more popular; but they should definitely keep it going. I want to see just how unpopular the two major parties can become and still have sheeple voting for them.
Cross Mexico's border illegally and find out what happens to you on their side. Or if you want a real challenge cross illegally into North Korea, China, or Israel. You will learn very quickly that borders are not artificial.
Except when they already have violated our laws by entering the country illegally. Hence the illegal part.
Only you are bring race into this. If any person of any race from any foreign country enters or country illegally they are a criminal and need to be deported. That includes overstaying work, school, and temporary visas.
If they come legally through Ellis Island (and are documented) they are not criminals. If they are given court appearances and don't show up; or overstay any visas they are given- then they are. What is so damn hard to understand about that? The color of their skin doesn't matter one damn bit.
If you choose to continue to believe that lie, be my guest. But, don't expect those who know the truth to agree.
We will ALWAYS be a country of immigrants as long as people from other countries continue to immigrate to America. And....the land does not recognize borders.
Indeed. That is my point. I'm glad to see that you agree. Only governments and countries are that stupid.
Seems to me, the last time the govt. shut down it was those on the right who threw a fit because the Jefferson Memorial was closed.
The "Liberal" Fences, had a bit to do with that.
Why the need for liberal Fences for something that simple ?
......Get it ?
So... What the hell is a 'liberal fence'.
It was all over the news. Obama shut out "AMERICANS" from "AMERICAN" monuments.
But alas, Liberals don't have the stomach to shut out "Illegals" coming INTO this country.
It’s called Washington Monument Syndrome.
Democrats are "Always" for "Americans".....Until they "Ain't" !
All the parks were shut down.
You want to talk disrespect? Shortly after the government reopened the GOP killed a funding bill for those same veterans.
Raphael Cruz took the credit for shutting the government down that closed the parks.
And now we have Trump, the one that signed the VA reform bill !
That's gotta suck !
That's fucking hilarious! He signed the bill, now he doesn't want it funded....he played you! Bwaaahaha!
Yeah...that's realllly got to suck huh?
Based on your Link...….he hasn't "Stopped" anything.....has he.
Using your own post.....Bwahahahahahahahaha !
And here's the one they screwed the Veterans on just after the shutdown
Sure he has! He signed this thing so the rubes can say he supports the vets...then he fights funding it.
No, he didn't stop (bullshitting the gullible)
Ted Cruz shut down the government. (at least he claimed credit for it) It takes money and manpower to keep these monuments operating. If the money isn't there they have to close it. That means fencing them off while you are still able to get paid for fencing them off. Nobody knows how long they'll be closed.
Exactly !
Your comment is nothing more than a "KneeJERK", "I HATE Trump" type comment......as usual !
Nuance SUCKS huh !
"Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama said: “This bill would spend more than we agreed to spend ."
Maybe Dems and Repubs. should get their acts together, better than they do !
He didn't stop bullshitting the rubes..was the parentheses a blockade for you?
He signed it so the idiots would say he did. He refuses to fund it so it's going nowhere.
He knew who he was fooling....
The whitehouse is the one that's fighting the funding...or did you forget that part?
Nuance may suck for some but facts can really fuck up a right wingers day.
Just a "Keep Your Doctor" moment by a politician again ?
AGAIN …………………
“This bill would spend more than we agreed to spend."
because... our parks are like our border?
or because... our country is like mexicos park?
With a government shutdown, the employees at the border crossings won't be getting paid, so will they get shut down anyway?
Typical politicians like Schumer don't mind putting the screws to Americans to get their way.
But at least they say ….. "THEY CARE" !
I'd use an "Emoji" here, but my "Emojis" seem to "Offend" some folks !
I've been put in the "Bad Boy" closet for "Emoji Abuse" !
Let it snow...."FLAKE", let it snow..."Flake", let it snow...."Flake" ! (snicker)
Schumer isn't the little man baby saying he'll shut down the government if he doesn't get his way, that would be Donald Trump.
I've heard here how Democrats are the ones not meeting the President even half way, but it's the President who won't budge off his $5 billion number. Democrats have offered almost half of that which would be $2.5 billion, they offered $1.6 billion so not quite half way but nearly 40% of what the President is demanding.
The truth is, Democrats are for strong borders, we just happen to understand that means effective border security, not a boondoggle wall that will cost billions of dollars and take about 4 hours for anyone determined enough to get over, under or through. The money is far better spent on a drone tracking system that can target border crosser's and relay their positions in real time to border security than a simple physical barrier that will leak like a sieve as soon as it's built, all that money just wasted. Besides, 70% of undocumented immigrants got here by overstaying their visas so a pointless wall will do nothing to stem the tide if we don't fix our broken immigration system.
And, Trump shouldn't budge off his desire for the wall. It is of vital importance to build it, as it would add a layer of defense along the border for both safety of immigrants and reduce the need for personnel in remote areas. The personnel and vehicle cost savings alone would pay for the wall eventually. You should be calling up Schumer and telling him to cave to Trump, if you love your own lifestyle. Because, if your community is overrun by people that broke the law to get here, then you will lose that lifestyle as they then decide who can keep what.
The border patrol are deemed essential personnel, and so, they would still be there at the border doing their jobs and checking the people coming into the country.
No, it's not. There are only two groups proclaiming its necessity, angry xenophobic bigots who just simply hate the thought of brown people coming across the border and building contractors who think they'll get a piece of the multi-billion construction project that won't actually make anyone safer but will make the wall contractors richer.
FACT: 30% of the land needed to build the wall is on private or tribal lands
"Fences or walls obstruct crossers’ paths, cutting off a straight shot into the interior of the country. But a barrier is not the permanent object that some people imagine. Natural events can knock down parts of a border fence. One storm in Texas left a hole for months. Fences and walls can also erode near rivers or beaches, as the one in San Diego did. And they can be penetrated: Some fencing can be cut in minutes, and the Border Patrol reported repairing more than 4,000 holes in one year alone. They neglected to mention whether that number equaled that year’s number of breaches. Much of the current fencing can be easily mounted with a ladder or from the roof of a truck. In some cases, border crossers can scale the fence without any additional equipment. One viral video from 2010 shows two women easily climbing an 18-foot steel bollard-style pedestrian fence in less than 20 seconds ."
"Fences can have strong local effects, and the case for more fencing often relies completely on these regional outcomes. Take the San Diego border sector, probably the most commonly cited success story in this debate.
From 1990 to 1993, it replaced a “totally ineffective” fence with a taller, opaque landing mat fence along 14 miles of the border. This had little impact on the number of border crossers. “The primary fence, by itself, did not have a discernible impact on the influx of unauthorized aliens coming across the border in San Diego,” the Congressional Research Service concluded."
And beyond the fact that the wall won't work, is easily circumvent-able, costs too much money and requires eminent domain seizures, 70% of all undocumented immigrants in the US right now overstayed their visas, so a wall would have done nothing to keep them out. Oh, and border crossings are actually on the decline already and President Obama lowered the total number of undocumented immigrants by over 1 million during his two terms which is proof Democrats DO care deeply about border security. It is a bald faced lie that liberals and democrats want "open" borders. We want safe, effective border security, we just don't want to spend billions of our tax dollars on something that is PROVEN to be a failure before it's even begun.
Then, turn off your firewall, since it is worthless since it is imperfect. Just rely on your anti-virus. Because, that is what you are telling everyone. The border wall is just like the firewall, it will divert or deter attacks making it easier on the border patrol and ICE (the anti-virus) to keep out the other attackers who happen to get past the border wall (the firewall). While you're at it, turn your computer's network adapter to promiscuous mode and broadcast your SSID (your wireless network name) and you will get the current immigration climate in the microcosm of your home network.
Nope, it is not a boondoggle. It is more analogous to what goes on with everyone's home network, except we rely almost solely on the anti-virus (ICE and Border Patrol) to stop attackers. I suggest you study the concept of "Defense-in-depth". In IT, "defense-in-depth" means having several layers of technology to protect your systems. The first line of defense is usually a NIPS (Network Intrusion Prevention System) and/or a firewall, then a NIDS (Network Intrusion Detection System), then a HIDS (Host Intrusion Detection System aka anti-malware and/or anti-virus). Individually, they are each weak and can easily be defeated. Together, they can make a computer fairly well protected even if one of them fails to detect an attack.
That might be a good analogy if I were asking for the 700 miles of fence we already have to be torn down. I know there are places where a physical barrier at least presents some challenge and can slow down illegal border crossings in high traffic areas. I'm just saying that there is no need for adding thousands of miles of more "wall" or even fence in areas that are not high traffic or where it makes no sense to do so where logistically it's more cost than the protection it provides. I keep saying I want EFFECTIVE border security and a dumb fuck contiguous wall is NOT an effective use of border security funds.
That's a load of shit. Border security is exempt from the shutdown
Of course he shouldn't budge off his desire.
Which should deepen his resolve to get the money from the Mexican government like he said he would.
Then you should still be for the new wall, since your position is to turn off the updates on your firewall and let it get so run down and out of date that the simplest attacks will get through. But, that is your choice for your own system. But, in reality, your real position is that your ISP stops updating its firewall, NIPS, NIDS, network hardware, H'IPS, and network software at the same time as turning off the updates on your own computer system. That is the equivalent of the no need for replacing the existing fencing" argument.
you have no idea... LOL
cheers
<...... has had many complaints.
That is NOT my position. I said I support EFFECTIVE border security. Electronic surveillance has been proved far more effective, both in results and cost, than any border wall could ever be. So the "gut" feeling all you pro-contiguous border wall folk are relying on is SHIT. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, you have no fucking "border security" experience and are simply regurgitating the last right wing talking head that's spouting off rhetorical nonsense. So in your computer firewall example I am all for a constantly updated, agile digital defense system. What you're suggesting is akin to just adding a dozen extra outdated firewalls that are easily breached by today's technology, and then when that 700 miles of existing outdated firewall hasn't been working your suggestion is "Well, we just need to add two thousand more outdated firewalls, that'll stop 'em!". It's moronic, people "figured out" how to get around, under or over physical walls thousands of years ago, ladder technology is ancient. So please, I know this is hard for conservative heads to absorb, but we are NOT for open borders, we are for EFFECTIVE border security. Cost effective and results effective, and all the evidence to date shows that an electronic surveillance grid would be both and could not be breached in under four hours like virtually every wall suggested so far. Oh, and it wouldn't cost $20 billion to build like the wall would.
Yeah, we believe you....really. No, no, really....okay, I'm laughing...but really, we believe everything you say.
I wonder which is more important to Chuck !
He is an AMERICAN Senator after all…..right ?
He is an American Senator whose main interest is in staying in power, with all of the perks and insider information that entails. By whatever means necessary. No different than all of the other career politicians in Washington.
Exactly !
Unfortunately, so much of public opinion on these things is shaped by how the story is packaged and the news media is responsible for that. Naturally, that means the country will hear the Democratic perspective far more than the Republican perspective.
One thing I do know: Trump was elected to build a wall (among other things)
Were the Democrats elected to shut down the government just to stop a wall?
If you Trumpettes voted for him on that bs promise to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it, PT Barnum would have loved you. Trump is the one who wants to shut down the government if he doesn't get his wall.
His (-bleep-) followers need to g set up a GoFundMe account to pay for this wall of racism and idiocy if they want it to be built. What happened to the idea that Mexico would pay for it?
The xenophobic wall doesn't address the problem. Most of these people come to the US legally and overstay their visas. The wall won't stop that.
What is it about immigrants coming to the US that bothers you? Aren't they white enough for you?
only the stupidest people in our country thought that meant mexico was going to write a check up front.
in fact, generally speaking... when I tell someone "they will pay for that" im never talking about them writing me a check... it means im going to take it out of their ass against their will one way or another. trump telling mexico they will pay is no different. and they already are paying for their stupidity. mexico is now feeling the cost
it will be hillarious when mexico builds a "racist hate wall" on their southern border
"Illegal" isn't a "Race" !
I am sure the contractors will be fine with that form of payment...[eye roll]
Actually, there is a GoFundMe page and another on Fundly:
Well why don't we ask for some magic beans too! Maybe we can grow a giant bean-stock horizontally instead of vertically and that will solve our wall problem! /s
I had to assume your comment was meant as a joke since it's clearly pure fantasy, so I responded with one as well.
Trump is a democrat?
He was up until about 2012. I think he has changed parties - Democratic, Republican, Independent - a total of four or five times. He and the Clintons used to be fast friends. IIRC, he once tried to run under the Reform party (or something).
A clear indication that he has no ideology, principles or consistency.
Wow - how 'bout checking the status/party changes of many of the folks in Congress - guess that means they don't have any ideology, principles or consistency either, right?
You could easily say that about the parties.
Yep. I could say that an it would be equally true.
Is Trump threatening to shut down the government to prevent the wall from being built? Of course with TDS running rampant many on the left probably believe Trump is willing to shut down the government to prevent a wall from being built that he has stated repeatedly he wants.
The so called wall is nothing but political fodder for trump and his base. He constantly lies about the wall, funding for the wall and what it would accomplish.
trump is throwing a tantrum, like a child, until he gets what he wants. Blaming Democrats and saying they want open borders is a bullshit lie and everyone knows it. He tries to say it is where most drugs come from, which is false. He is saying that he is starting to build a wall in Texas, where is was previous funding and plans in place.
He lies about this constantly and the ever faithful never call him on any of it. He even has admitted he is only doing this for his own political gain.
In other words, the border wall is nothing but a political tool for him and the blind follow, salivating, like this will be a cure all. When we all know it won't be.
It is a monument to stupidity.
What has also been shown, time and again, how some ranchers are against it, as it will divide their land and make large tracks useless. Using eminent domain, which I thought libertarians were against.
Stop trying to blame the Democrats for the shutdown. Trump shut the government down because he didn't get the funding for his stupid wall rather than to sign continuing funding legislation that didn't support his wall of idiocy. I thought the said that Mexico would pay for it, so why did he abandon that claim?
Trump needs to sign a government funding plan without the wall and then pass separate and independent legislation for his xenophobic wall instead of trying to piggyback it on funding legislation.
No......the promise by President Con-ald was that there would be a wall built and paid for by Mexico....;..which anyone with an IQ higher than 10 knew was campaign bull. There are only 32 % of Americans who want the wall...….These are primarily the people who are either Trump loyalists or are so ignorant of both the impossibility or the cost of the task. We may need increased border security, but that can be done with an increased use of drones, situational fencing, a few additional border agents, and a coherent immigration policy that doesn't discriminate against Brown and Black people.
That's all we're talking about. It's all we've ever been talking about. Fence vs. Wall is not an important distinction. The situation is this: In many places where we don't have a barrier, we could really use one, and in places where we have some kind of barrier, it could be improved. Not even Trump thinks that the entire length of the border - including the center of the Rio Grande or steep mountains, for example - will get a 30-foot wall.
Why don't you listen to what the Chief of the Border Patrol says we need?
Border Patrol Chief: 'We Certainly Need a Wall, Any Agent Will Tell You That'
Border states do not make up the entirety of the USA.
Did you forget how Cruz and those from the border states didn't want to help the New England states for a devestating hurricane?
Other than the hype bullshit in that comment, it has been Republicans standing in the way of immigration solutions because their big donors (coca cola, tropicana, quaker oats, General mills, etc). Were screaming about needing them.
When Obama started targeting the businesses that hired the aliens the right went nuts and said Obama was anti-business.
To you, maybe not. But to the Trump base, it is an important distinction. Trump himself has said that he'd accept a fence for certain areas, but clearly wants an actual wall for much of the border.
It seems to me that the drones you mentioned would be a lot more effective. Not only would that help direct the border agents to where they're needed, it might also prevent a lot of the deaths of the illegal immigrants who are abandoned by the coyotes. There would also be much less impact on the environment (such as the butterfly sanctuary).
With Mexican money. "It won't cost the taxpayers a dime"
Not stop it, but not pay for it as promised by Trump.
Is there actually a Democrat who has said they would support the wall if Mexico paid for it?
That's a stupid question.
Why would they need to support it if mexico is paying for it? It would be a great deal. And certainly a promise he'd actually keep.
Come to think of it...yes.
Pelosi encouraged Trump to have the wall built if Mexico pays for it...that was the last meeting that he got his ass handed to him.
Well they keep saying the wall is offensive or it won't work. The cost is certainly one of the complaints I hear about it, but not the only one.
Very good. Could you post some links to that? I would love to see Pelosi saying she supports the wall, just not the cost.
Democrats:for border security before they were against it.
Republicans: against racism before they were for it.
Oh. I must have missed where Republicans came out and joined the Democrats in favor of the government discriminating on the basis of race. Can you provide a link to that?
Discrimination, leveling the playing field ... tomato, tomahto.
[Removed]
Actually many Republicans aren't. Conservatives? Now that's another story.
They were lynching 'em up and passing jim crow laws since before the civil war. And it still shows.
yeah, my post requires the reader to make some connections for themselves.
[Deleted]
No, not really. It just requires one to see when someone is trying to put words in someone's mouth.
Nice try but too much history of conservatives doing that.
Deleted
..... that you have not read a history book.
kkk and jim crow = democrats
and just for fun?
the most opposition to women voting? democrats again.
You're absolutely correct..CONSERVATIVES that were Democrats who migrated to the Republicans.
Regardless of party...they were the conservatives.
Facts will fuck up a right wingers day.
Awwww. What's the matter?
Facts fuck up your day? It was the conservatives that made those laws, lynched the black men, fought against civil rights.
No matter what party they belonged to they were conservatives.
Tough luck.
complete and utter bs from the word go.
such a political event would have been well documented. you should know this because you can not back that claim up with anything other than the likes of a leftwing blog.
Times change and parties change.
The conservatives that supported those policies have now joined the republican party.
No matter how one tries to spin that fact.
Weird that people try to deny that fact.
[deleted]
Deny it all you want, it is still a fact.
Since the state is completely republican run, it kind of draws its own picture.
And yes, I know a lot of people that are generally nice people yet have racists tendencies.
I even caught my Nephew using the N word and saying some horrible things. Learned from his friends and Grandparents. His Grandparents on the in-law side are very racist.
They all vote republican.
Mississippi
No, I blame them for continuing the practices.
And yes, the ones from back then, the ones still around, would not vote for a Democrat today.
I didn't say they weren't. What I said was they were conservatives...no spin, it's a fact.
Deal with it.
they are still alive? LOL
seriously though...
when did this BIG SWITCH occur?
after the civil war? or after reconstruction?
actually.... seeing as the democrats also provided the most resistance to women getting the vote - everyone must have switched chairs after that??
Early and mid 20th century. Especially during the 60's when....GASP! Democrats wanted equal rights for Black people and women.
That's when the Republicans swung those doors wide open and the conservatives, bigots and white power groups slithered in. In the meantime Black people ran to the Democrats.
Thar was during Goldwater and Thurman's heydays
Fast forward to this year and the conservatives managed to show themselves to the women who fled the Republican party.
Factual history knida sucks huh?
Amazes me some will deny the truth when we all know and have seen it happen.
Sort of on the same lines as some still think trump is telling them the truth.
LOL your word is not near enough.
first, your going to link to a factual history source and back all that up ( not the likes of some liberal blog )
but if true im sure finding all that at a site like history.com will be easy enough. I can wait.
ever heard of "no fault divorce? no law has done more to liberate women from abusive marriages/husbands
yet, a republican was the first governor to sign a "no fault divorce" law in 1970 and the last governor to pass that law was a democrat in 2010
should that not have been the other way around? if what your saying is true democrats should have passed that law first.... in 1970 why did it take democrats 40yrs to be last on this issue?
if your assertion was true the republicans would have tried to kill that law once they figured out it helped women.
What was the makeup of those governors' states' legislatures?
matters not.... an evil republican signed it into law first and the so called saintly democrat took 40 yrs
as im curious enough...
democrat governor NY 2010
you tell me.
It matters not?
Do governors generally legislate independently?
a governor has that thing called "veto and they use it.
if an evil republican did not like it... they would not have signed it...
but still...
NY democrat governor was last to sign that law...
what was the legislative makeup in NY for 40yrs prior to 2010.... riddle me this
im bettin lots of democrats
Do governors legislate independently?
the question is....
was the legislative makeup in NY controlled by evil republicans from 1970-2010 ?
answer that... why the 40yr wait?
And the first state to adopt it was California. Yes, signed by Ronald Reagan, a divorcee himself. What was the makeup of the California state legislature at the time? Did Reagan have recourse to an override-proof veto?
You're very obviously simplifying the legislative process.
A deeper look reveals that NY's no-fault divorce law was opposed by the NY state chapter of NOW:
Liberals had reasons to delay passage of no-fault divorce in NY.
Legislation isn't as simple as you'd like to make it out to be, for purposes of vilifying liberals. Governors don't legislate alone. Some laws have potential consequences that should delay their passage.
So, you're taking one law, originally implemented in Russia, developed in the USA by the ULC and signed by Reagan as some sort of proof about Republicans being more tolerant than Dems.
Pretty desperate when the original discussion was that Conservatives wrote the jim crow laws and were the lynchers in the 19th and 20th century.
Quite a derail to escape facts.
First, the prior governor (Edmund Brown, a Democrat) had started a commission to propose reforms to divorce and family law. The commission's suggestions then bounced around the California Assembly before the law hit Reagan's desk. Importantly, support for the law was bipartisan and strong.
Friedman, Lawrence M. (2002). American Law in the Twentieth Century. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 435–36.
Read and weep
After the Civil R ights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 , the party's core base shifted, with the Southern states becoming more reliably Republican in presidential politics and the Northeastern states becoming more reliably Democratic. After the 1960s, whites increasingly identified with the Republican Party. [22] After the Roe v. Wade 1973 Supreme Court ruling, the Republican Party made opposition to abortion a key plank of its national party platform and grew its support among Evangelicals . [23] By 2000, the Republican party was firmly aligned with Christian conservatism. [24] The party's core support since the 1990s comes chiefly from the South , the Great Plains , the Mountain States and rural areas in the North . [25] [26]
why would I weep?
that does not back up your assertion that the gop is full of racists, and bigots or whatever.
and has nothing to do with everyone on the right being evil... they just ran away from the stupid that was growing in the dnc,
btw: this trend has picked up again in recent yrs as well.
the idea that every republican or every person not democrat is evil? is pure bs.
but saying that is a great way to divide the nation. (the lefts actual goal here)
the 60's and 70's is when the left started driving old school democrats from their party to the right.
( I am one of them - I am not in the gop / independent - and defiantly not a socialist/anarchist either)
the bottom line for me back then was simple.
when the left (weatherman) started bombing federal buildings and judges?
that my first clue it was time to leave the left as there is no moral high ground to be found there
does that make me a racist also? in todays world? of course it does... LOL
Now, if you could only point out where I did all that?
You can't.
In your panic and crush getting facts handed to you suddenly you're claiming I assrrted all sorts pf things which is a lie.
To be specofic, this started out wjen.the same old tired label of "they were democrats" was thrown
When in the reality, it was tje conservatibes regardless of which.party
Then in your bold commemt demanded I prove where the trasitipn.of comservatives migrated to the RNC without using some liberal opinion site.
I did and showed with plenty of references and now you can't handle the truth so you go off on a tantrum accusing me of asserting broad sweeps.
Sorry, the facts were shown and you have ZERO to debunk it.
Facts can fuck up a conservatives day huh?
I never ignored they were Democrats, in fact I agreed.
The fact remains the same....they were conservatives. And as I already proved, when civil rights were being put forth by the liberal Democrats, the conservatives left to vote for Goldwater and were welcomed with open arms by the Republicanss...even Strom Thurmond changed parties in 1964. The same conservatives that were writing the Jim Crow laws, always carried rope, firebombed black churches,
History has a way .....
And you're correct a trend is resuming. Except this year not only did the Republicans not gain any minorities, they lost a shitload of women.
Every time it's tossed out there I have agreed that they were Democrats.
The bite comes when I state and give the fact that they were conservatives that's when the denials start...in the face of facts no less.
So, who's got the problem with reality and facts?
Where do you see haste in providing facts?
I agree they were Democrats, it's when the liberals started pushing for civil rights that the conservatives not only left for the Republican party, they also walked out of congress when civil rights were brought up.
Strom Thurmand switched parties in 1964....he wasn't a liberal by a long shot.
The facts are there, up to you to learn or not.
That's hilarious!.
100's of 1000's of pages support my point.
You have to dig back in to an obscure anti liberal military buff magazine to support your view.
Amazing the lengths people will go through to refuse to learn.
That would depend on what you're actually asking.
As far as historic names, only 3 actually switched. The conservative Democrats were "Dixiecrats". They were the conservatives that had no use for the emerging liberal stance and their support of civil rights citing "states rights" regarding segregation and other rules based on color. Oh, they didn't have any room for you. Not only would you have been "not white" in the very least, you'd be an abomination of mankind.
The Dixiecrats collapsed and viola they showed up and the black folks ran to the liberals.
Is there anywhere I stated the voters weren't conservatives?
If they were all liberals there wouldn't have been any church bombings, lynchings, and Jim Crow laws.
It's the liberals that were pushing civil rights. The conservatives that were against it. The conservative Democrats you speak of were "Dixiecrats" there's a very clear trail on when, why, and how they formed. Then which way they went when they collapsed.
There's plenty of books on how the conservatives took over the Republican party in the 60's.
History, especially well documented history is a beautiful thing.
Here, I'll go read for you....
Democrats kept their party designation locally, they supported the conservatives. Hence the southern states were still hostile to minorities well past the 60's. Still had lynchings, still tried Jim Crow tactics., still try suppression.
But now there's no more "Dixiecrats" they're Republicans.
Only if one does not read.
My opinion of a particular state's education system is being confirmed.
Here, you can go read for yourself.
[deleted]
This one is easy. Shut down the government.
word.
But then the government workers will get back pay for the days they didn't have to work - a paid vacation, on our dime. That is, the ones who weren't forced to work anyway during the shutdown. But all the contractors, small businesses, etc. who are affected won't ever get back the money they lost due to a shutdown.
They can stop work just as well. Contractors, small businesses, etc. make billions off the government in cost overruns. We are all being paid in fake money any way.
It's time for this country to stop sucking on the guvments tit anyway. Those business are stealing from other tax payers. The guvment doesn't make money, it steals it and pays it to its cronies.
SHUT. IT. DOWN.
Hahaha!
Trump got his ass handed to him in his televised ambush he pulled with "Chuck and Nancy"
Now he caved on his threat. He gets NOTHING.
can we do both? lol
could be another way of saying.... "if ya want to go home for christmas? fund the wall
It’s time to close the border and cut the size of government .